1. Since I updated to 0.25, my USB capture card stopped working (WinTV-HVR-950Q / 2040:7200 from lsusb), I used to use it in analog mode, it doesn't work anymore, and furthermore, my system gets unstable after I try to enable it on mythtv (however, it works just fine with tvtime, as long as it is not configured on mythtv)... when I try to configure it on mythtv it first makes backend process "hang", and I'm unable to kill it, unless I use signal 9... On kernel logs, I see the "au0828-video.c:895" problem of this thread: http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/2012-April/331164.html.... now, the thing is: in 0.24 it used to work, and it also works on tvtime..... suggestions on this are welcome. I'm using ubuntu 11.10, with custom-built 3.2.15 kernel.

2. My ivtv capture card (pvr150) works, but when I transcode to mpeg4 (nuv), the quality goes down A LOT, and apparently it is because of the interlacing (if I use linear blend deinterlacing on playback, or with mplayer (-vf pp=lb or even pp=md) while directly playing the nuv file, it looks better, but otherwise (without deinterlace or with reedy highmotion deint), it looks like the vertical resolution was cut in half) ... maybe this have always been like this, I don't know, I didn't used to transcode a lot on 0.24, I used to record to mpeg4 directly using the USB analog tuner, and quality was good (and the video actually looked like interlaced, the transcoded on 0.25 doesn't look exactly like interlaced)... now, transcode from high-bitrate mpeg2 (6000kbps average) to mpeg4 (same parameters I used to use with 950q when recording directly), doesn't look good at all (if you need pictures, I guess I could take some samples and send them).

So: yes, 0.25 has fewer issues related to interface (for example, I no longer have the playback quitting with "Waited 104ms for video buffers AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUuuP" kind of messages I used to have).... and channel changing is a lot more reliable, also, as long as I doesn't transcode, recording quality is great... but not being able to use my second tuner, and being unable to correctly transcode to mpeg4 (and save >60% of disk space) is not good for me, so, I'd rather go back to 0.24 (with its own UI problems) than losing the ability to use my USB tuner and the odd transcode issues (at least until I have the time to hunt down the issues with 0.25 and the analog usage of 950q).

So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without losing recent recordings, of course). If this is terribly complex, I could just stay with 0.25, and forget about my USB tuner for the time being (until I get more time to do bug hunting).

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa" <ildefonso.camargo [at] gmail> > To: mythtv-users [at] mythtv > Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 8:35:52 AM > Subject: [mythtv-users] Safe way to downgrade from 0.25 back to 0.24? > > Greetings, > > I'd like to go back to 0.24, why?: > > 1. Since I updated to 0.25, my USB capture card stopped working > (WinTV-HVR-950Q / 2040:7200 from lsusb), I used to use it in analog > mode, it doesn't work anymore, and furthermore, my system gets > unstable after I try to enable it on mythtv (however, it works just > fine with tvtime, as long as it is not configured on mythtv)... when > I > try to configure it on mythtv it first makes backend process "hang", > and I'm unable to kill it, unless I use signal 9... On kernel logs, I > see the "au0828-video.c:895" problem of this thread: > http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/2012-April/331164.html> .... now, the thing is: in 0.24 it used to work, and it also works on > tvtime..... suggestions on this are welcome. Â I'm using ubuntu 11.10, > with custom-built 3.2.15 kernel. > > 2. My ivtv capture card (pvr150) works, but when I transcode to mpeg4 > (nuv), the quality goes down A LOT, and apparently it is because of > the interlacing (if I use linear blend deinterlacing on playback, or > with mplayer (-vf pp=lb or even pp=md) while directly playing the nuv > file, it looks better, but otherwise (without deinterlace or with > reedy highmotion deint), it looks like the vertical resolution was > cut > in half) ... maybe this have always been like this, I don't know, I > didn't used to transcode a lot on 0.24, I used to record to mpeg4 > directly using the USB analog tuner, and quality was good (and the > video actually looked like interlaced, the transcoded on 0.25 doesn't > look exactly like interlaced)... now, transcode from high-bitrate > mpeg2 (6000kbps average) to mpeg4 (same parameters I used to use with > 950q when recording directly), doesn't look good at all > (if you need pictures, I guess I could take some samples and send > them). > > So: yes, 0.25 has fewer issues related to interface (for example, I > no > longer have the playback quitting with "Waited 104ms for video > buffers > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUuuP" kind of messages I used to > have).... > and channel changing is a lot more reliable, also, as long as I > doesn't transcode, recording quality is great... but not being able > to > use my second tuner, and being unable to correctly transcode to mpeg4 > (and save >60% of disk space) is not good for me, so, I'd rather go > back to 0.24 (with its own UI problems) than losing the ability to > use > my USB tuner and the odd transcode issues (at least until I have the > time to hunt down the issues with 0.25 and the analog usage of 950q). > > So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without > losing recent recordings, of course). If this is terribly complex, I > could just stay with 0.25, and forget about my USB tuner for the time > being (until I get more time to do bug hunting). > > Thanks in advance! > > Ildefonso Camargo > _______________________________________________ > mythtv-users mailing list > mythtv-users [at] mythtv > http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users> _______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users [at] mythtv http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa > <ildefonso.camargo [at] gmail> wrote: >> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >> losing recent recordings, of course). > > You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and > then import any new recordings manually. That's the only supported > method.

sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix things on 0.25.

On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?).

On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote: >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >>> losing recent recordings, of course). >> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and >> then import any new recordings manually. Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly MythVideo).

>> That's the only supported >> method. > sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, > I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from > 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, > and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix > things on 0.25. > > On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with > transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?).

FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained device that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use something other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV container.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote: > On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>>> >>>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >>>> losing recent recordings, of course). >>> >>> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and >>> then import any new recordings manually. > > > Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly > MythVideo). > > >>> That's the only supported >>> method. >> >> sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, >> I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from >> 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, >> and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix >> things on 0.25. >> >> On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with >> transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?). > > > FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the > Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV > recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by > mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any > "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning > you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd > only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained device > that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use something > other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV container.

Right, but I don't have >US$100 to spare right now (and I will not be able to spare it for at least another 6 months, or more)... also, more disks=more power consumption=more monthly cost, more heat, more noise, .....

For the about same quality, mpeg4 will require half the disk space. Only downside here (and now) is that after the transcode mpeg4 file looks ugly (but that's not supposed to be like that)... IŽll try to get some screencaps for you to see (mythtv deleted original file, so, I have to do another recording, and do a transocde without deleting the original file), however, on 0.24 (when I was able to use my frame grabber tuner- USB), the mpeg4 quality of a recording from the USB tuner was quite good, I mean: 2.2Mbps MPEG4 (nuv) file had about the same quality as a 4~5Mbps MPEG2 file.

Now, maybe the comparison is not fair, because the USB tuner is newer, and likely has better quality than the PVR-150, but all in all, MPEG4 use to be superior to MPEG2, while saving >=40% of disk space (I know h264 is even better).

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote: >> On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >>>>> losing recent recordings, of course). >>>> >>>> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and >>>> then import any new recordings manually. >> >> >> Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly >> MythVideo). >> >> >>>> That's the only supported >>>> method. >>> >>> sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, >>> I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from >>> 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, >>> and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix >>> things on 0.25. >>> >>> On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with >>> transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?). >> >> >> FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the >> Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV >> recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by >> mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any >> "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning >> you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd >> only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained device >> that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use something >> other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV container. > > For the about same quality, mpeg4 will require half the disk space.

Only if you use H.264, which mythtranscode doesn't support. Mythtranscode's mpeg4 files are about the same size as mpeg2 files. You will have to use ffmpg or handbrake to generate h.264.

> Only downside here (and now) is that after the transcode mpeg4 file > looks ugly (but that's not supposed to be like that)...

Agreed. I have used mythtranscode on both 0.24 and 0.23 and it looks bad on both when the source is interlaced (horrible combing) unless you do a lossless encode (about all it is good for).

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Roger Horner <mythtvuser1818 [at] gmail> wrote: > On 2012-05-03, at 7:10 PM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa <ildefonso.camargo [at] gmail> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote: >>> On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >>>>>> losing recent recordings, of course). >>>>> >>>>> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and >>>>> then import any new recordings manually. >>> >>> >>> Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly >>> MythVideo). >>> >>> >>>>> That's the only supported >>>>> method. >>>> >>>> sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, >>>> I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from >>>> 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, >>>> and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix >>>> things on 0.25. >>>> >>>> On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with >>>> transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?). >>> >>> >>> FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the >>> Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV >>> recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by >>> mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any >>> "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning >>> you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd >>> only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained device >>> that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use something >>> other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV container. >> >> For the about same quality, mpeg4 will require half the disk space. > > Only if you use H.264, which mythtranscode doesn't support. Mythtranscode's mpeg4 files are about the same size as mpeg2 files. You will have to use ffmpg or handbrake to generate h.264.

Nope, h264 is just better (well, ok, a lot better, and also A LOT slower at encoding), but mpeg4 is clearly superior to mpeg2 (thus: I use it to record from frame grabbers). Trust me, I did A LOT of tests with video codecs a few years ago, including: mpeg2, mpeg4, mjpeg, Theora, DivX, xvid, x264 (same as h264?, well, I used x264) (as far as I can remember). All in all, x264 is really good (best for now?), mpeg4 is good specially with 2-pass (and relatively fast), and mpeg2, well, it is good and proven, but I when given the choice, I would certainly use mpeg4 over mpeg2 any day.

> >> Only downside here (and now) is that after the transcode mpeg4 file >> looks ugly (but that's not supposed to be like that)... > > Agreed. I have used mythtranscode on both 0.24 and 0.23 and it looks bad on both when the source is interlaced (horrible combing) unless you do a lossless encode (about all it is good for).

Interesting, so... maybe try to make mythtranscode deinterlace before transcoding would be a good idea (now, I wonder why direct record to mpeg4 looks so good, and yes: interlaced, whereas transcoding from interlaced mpeg2 to mpeg4 looks so bad).

On 04.05.2012 04:29, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: > Nope, h264 is just better (well, ok, a lot better, and also A LOT > slower at encoding), but mpeg4 is clearly superior to mpeg2 (thus: I > use it to record from frame grabbers). Trust me, I did A LOT of tests > with video codecs a few years ago, including: mpeg2, mpeg4, mjpeg, > Theora, DivX, xvid, x264 (same as h264?, well, I used x264) (as far as > I can remember). All in all, x264 is really good (best for now?), > mpeg4 is good specially with 2-pass (and relatively fast), and mpeg2, > well, it is good and proven, but I when given the choice, I would > certainly use mpeg4 over mpeg2 any day.

just a small note, when talking about MPEG4 in broadcast context it is always H.264 (aka MPEG-4 Part 10), not to be confused with DixX & Co. which are MPEG-4 Part 2.

And to add something to the discussion, you can add a user job to transcode the recordings with mythffmpeg, see http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Category:User_Job_Scriptse.g. http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/High_Quality_Transcode combined with others to add obeying the cut list (I overrecord up to 55 minutes per episode due to some stations running late up to ~40 minutes at night and at 45 minutes recording to keep and 55 minutes to drop that saves a lot of space, even with lossless transcode) Then you can quickly set cut marks and fire off the cut and trancode job with a few clicks.

Btw, I'm suggesting that script as it targets H.264/AAC in MP4 files which appear to be compatible with lots of players, so you only have to transcode once and can watch it on lots of devices. E.g if you want to play around with a cheap Raspberry Pi later, that thing only has H.264 hardware support.

> On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: > >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>> >>>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without >>>> losing recent recordings, of course). >>>> >>> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and >>> then import any new recordings manually. >>> >> > Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly > MythVideo). > > > That's the only supported >>> method. >>> >> sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually, >> I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from >> 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150, >> and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix >> things on 0.25. >> >> On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with >> transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?). >> > > FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the > Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV > recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by > mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any > "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning > you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd > only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained > device that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use > something other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV > container. >

Michael usually has this process down pat. Not sure if it is reflected in the FAQ answer

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Karl Dietz <dekarl [at] spaetfruehstuecken> wrote: > On 04.05.2012 04:29, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >> >> Nope, h264 is just better (well, ok, a lot better, and also A LOT >> slower at encoding), but mpeg4 is clearly superior to mpeg2 (thus: I >> use it to record from frame grabbers). Trust me, I did A LOT of tests >> with video codecs a few years ago, including: mpeg2, mpeg4, mjpeg, >> Theora, DivX, xvid, x264 (same as h264?, well, I used x264) (as far as >> I can remember). All in all, x264 is really good (best for now?), >> mpeg4 is good specially with 2-pass (and relatively fast), and mpeg2, >> well, it is good and proven, but I when given the choice, I would >> certainly use mpeg4 over mpeg2 any day. > > > just a small note, when talking about MPEG4 in broadcast context it is > always H.264 (aka MPEG-4 Part 10), not to be confused with DixX & Co. > which are MPEG-4 Part 2. > > And to add something to the discussion, you can add a user job to transcode > the recordings with mythffmpeg, see > http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Category:User_Job_Scripts> e.g. > http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/High_Quality_Transcode combined with others > to add obeying the cut list (I overrecord up to 55 minutes per episode > due to some stations running late up to ~40 minutes at night and at > 45 minutes recording to keep and 55 minutes to drop that saves a lot > of space, even with lossless transcode) > Then you can quickly set cut marks and fire off the cut and trancode job > with a few clicks. > > > Btw, I'm suggesting that script as it targets H.264/AAC in MP4 files > which appear to be compatible with lots of players, so you only have > to transcode once and can watch it on lots of devices. > E.g if you want to play around with a cheap Raspberry Pi later, that > thing only has H.264 hardware support.

This is good :) , I'll certainly implement this on my system.... after I get some free time. I also want to have my 950Q working again :( , but that'll require more time.... who knows, maybe next week. _______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users [at] mythtv http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users